Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-5 are presently pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Applicants’ Priority Document was filed on April 4, 2024.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In each of claims 2 and 5, a colon (“:”) should be added after “2.2 or more” .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 5 are indefinite because there are no numerical values or ranges for the variables “Y” and “Z” in the Equation 1-2 recited therein, nor are there numerical values or ranges for “y” and “z” (i.e., the biodegradability and the pulverization yield, respectively), from which “Y” and “Z” are respectively calculated.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (KR 1014401486) in view of Yoshii et al. (JP 2001-002703, Applicants’ submitted art; English translation provided and relied upon).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Kang et al. teach a method for manufacturing an eco-friendly superabsorbent resin obtained by adding citric acid (CA) to carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), a cellulose derivative, and then irradiating it with radiation, and to a non-toxic biodegradable superabsorbent resin manufactured by said method. Kang et al. further teach a mixing ratio composed of 1-30% by weight of the carboxymethylcellulose, 1-30% by weight of the citric acid, and the balance water (40-98% by weight), as well as a preferred ratio of 10-13% by weight carboxymethylcellulose, 2-4% by weight of the citric acid, and the remainder water (83-88% by weight). See paragraphs [0001] and [0015]-[0025] of Kang et al., the latter of which teaches (a) irradiation is preferably done via electron beams, wherein the radiation dose is preferably 20 to 30 kGy, and most preferably 20 kGy, and (b) a step of drying the carboxymethylcellulose/citric acid gel following the irradiation.
Further regarding claim 1, and also regarding claim 4, Kang et al. teach an embodiment in which a paste comprising carboxymethylcellulose and citric acid is formed and irradiated with electron beams, wherein the irradiation dose is 10 kGy/scan, and scanned according to each dose so that the total irradiation dose became 0, 10, 20, 30, 50, and 100 kGy. The resultant gel is freeze-dried, cut into square shapes, and immersed in distilled water to dissolve uncrosslinked portions, followed by drying the undissolved portion at 37°C for 48 hours (“drying the irradiated mixture at 10 to 70°C”; “wherein the eco-friendly CMC polymer satisfies one or more of a time taken for drying of 30 to 85 hours…”). See paragraphs [0040]-[0043] of Kang et al.
Regarding claims 2 and 5, it is considered that because the drying temperature and time disclosed in Kang et al. reads upon the drying temperature recited in claim 1 ("10 to 70°C"), and because the method disclosed in this reference is comparable to Applicants' claimed method, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to reasonably expect said drying temperature to result in a temperature dependent utility value of the carboxymethylcellulose/citric acid gel (superabsorbent resin) obtained by the method disclosed in Kang et al. comparable to that instantly claimed, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary.
Kang et al. do not explicitly teach or suggest the step of “pulverizing the dried mixture”, as recited in claim 1. However, this reference, at paragraphs [0036] and [0037], teaches the feasibility in the aforementioned carboxymethylcellulose/citric acid gel being environmentally friendly and non-toxic, as well as exhibiting high crosslinking, absorbency, and moisture retention. Said carboxymethylcellulose/citric acid gel can also be used in hospital supplies (sanitary mats, bandages, and wound protectants), cosmetics (cold packs, hot packs, deodorizers), and concrete inhalants, as well as in civil engineering materials (support materials and absorbent sacks), and for special purposes such as artificial snow, oil-water separators, and absorbent fibers.
From this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to modify the method disclosed in Kang et al. by incorporating therein a step of pulverizing the carboxymethylcellulose/citric acid gel, to prepare the carboxymethylcellulose/citric acid gel for use as, for example, support materials, absorbent fibers, hot packs, cold packs, etc.
Kang et al., while teaching the employment of carboxymethylcellulose, does not explicitly teach or suggest that the carboxymethylcelluose exhibits a viscosity of 1000 cps or more, as recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, Yoshii et al. teach the preparation of a cross-linked alkylcellulose derivative, wherein a raw material alkylcellulose derivative (e.g., a carboxyalkylcellulose) is mixed with water, and the resultant mixture is subjected to irradiation treatment with, for example, electron beams. Yoshii et al. further teach the feasibility in drying the crosslinked alkylcellulose derivative after irradiation treatment, wherein the drying conditions are not particularly limited. Yoshii et al. teach an embodiment in which a 20% by weight aqueous solution of carboxymethylcellose (CMC), said CMC having a viscosity of 3670 mPa-s (3670 cps) in a 10% by weight aqueous solution, is irradiated with doses ranging from 0 to 70 kGy. See paragraphs [0003], [0017]-[0020], [0025], and [0027] of Yoshii et al.
Additionally, Yoshii et al. teach that the cross-linked alkylcelluose derivative obtained by the aforementioned preparation has “properties such as water absorption, high gel strength, and/or biodegradability”, and that, by “utilizing these properties, they can be used not only in conventional applications listed in general literature and literature describing the prior art, but also in fields where even higher performance is required for those applications, and in superabsorbent resins such as those found in sanitary products and disposable diapers.” See paragraph [0026] of Yoshii et al.
Motivated by these references’ common teachings regarding the irradiation of carboxymethylcelluose with electron beams, as well as in the formation of superabsorbent resins as a result of said irradiation, it would have been obvious to modify the method disclosed in Kang et al. by incorporating therein a carboxymethylcellulose having a viscosity of 3670 mPa-s (3670 cps), as suggested by Yoshii et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA L HAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung, can be reached at 571-270-5713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Patricia L. Hailey/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 August 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights